alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co.

23339

06/14/2002

Affirmed
# C_2020423EN.01000601.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės — Lithuania) — ‘Linas Agro’ AB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-117/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 - Definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight - Definition - Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 - Determination of the ammonium nitrate content - Presumption that a product with a nitrogen content exceeding 28 % by weight has an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight)

(2020/C 423/08)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘Linas Agro’ AB

Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014 of 23 September 2014 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, read in the light of recitals 20 to 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 of 21 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia and Regulation (EC) No 132/2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in, inter alia, Ukraine, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, must be interpreted as meaning that an ammonium nitrate (AN) fertiliser with a nitrogen (N) content exceeding 28 % by weight, a ratio between nitric nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen of approximately 1:1 and an overall phosphorus and potassium content not exceeding 12 % by weight may be presumed, until proof to the contrary is provided, to have an ammonium nitrate (AN) content of more than 80 % by weight for the purpose of imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty which that article lays down, without it being necessary to carry out laboratory testing in order to determine the precise ammonium nitrate content.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
#### Robert L. HUTCHINS, Lula Belle Hutchins, John M. Tetens and Gwen L. Tetens, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Edgar M. SPERLING and Oma V. Sperling, Defendants in Error.

No. 37354.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 12, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1957.

*590Fletcher S. Riley, Oklahoma City, Jay D. Jones, Duncan, Charles G. Ozmun, Lawton, for plaintiffs in error.

Godlove & Cummins, Ralph H. Cline, Lawton, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The record reveals that the order overruling the plaintiffs’ in error motion for new trial was entered November 30, 1955. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this Court May 8, 1956. On January 21, 1956, an order was entered extending the time in which to perfect an appeal until March 1, 1956. Thereafter, on February 27, 1956, a second order was entered extending the time until April 30, 1956, both to make and serve case-made and to file appeal. The case-made, after service and notice, was finally settled on April 23, 1956. No further order extending the time in which to appeal is contained in the case-made.

 It is apparent that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on appeal. The petition in error was not filed within three months from the date of the judgment or final order or within the time granted by an authorized extension of time in which to appeal. 12 O.S.1951, § 972. This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the Court. This Court will, upon its own motion, determine if its jurisdiction has been invoked. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Asendorf, 203 Okl. 263, 220 P.2d 272. If jurisdiction has not been acquired the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

*591The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease and approved by Commissioners Jean R. Reed and J. W. Crawford, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in Conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, J., dissent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
DA 20

- 0284

________________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
Vs.
INNA VICTORIA HALL , a ka INNA VIKTOROVNA POSTOLNIKOVA , aka NESSA CHRISMAN, Defendant and Appellant

.

__________________________________________________ ___________ ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appe llant is granted an extension of time to and including April 19 , 2021 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2021

03/15/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0284
#### State v. Miller

16677

1/27/95

Denied — P.2d -
CSB BANCORP, INC.

EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS







|                                                 | Three Months Ended
June 30, | Six Months Ended
June 30,
|------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------- | -------------------------
|                                                 | 2003                        | 2002                     
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Basic Earnings Per Share                         |                             |                          
|Net income                                       | $571,614                    | $504,858                 
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Weighted average
common shares                   | 2,634,732                   | 2,629,518                
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Basic Earnings
Per Share                         | $ 0.21                      | $ 0.19                   
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Diluted Earnings Per Share
Net income            | $571,614                    | $504,858                 
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Weighted average
common shares                   | 2,634,732                   | 2,629,518                
|Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options | 4,072                       | 4,456                    
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Total                                            | 2,638,804                   | 2,633,974                
|                                                 |                             |                          
|Diluted Earnings
Per Share                       | $ 0.21                      | $ 0.19                   
|                                                 |                             |
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 402ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 24th 

day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC, 

Appellant

v.

Quitman Independent School District, et 

al., Appellees

No. 06-15-00036-CV

Trial Court No. T-3625

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC, pay all costs of 

this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 8th day of October, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-26-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,999
<PP&E>                                          36,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,619
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 676,108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,208
<BONDS>                                        495,206
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           421
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   676,108
<SALES>                                        157,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,966
<CGS>                                          115,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,713
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
[No. 37491.

Department Two.

October 7, 1965.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gerald E. Miller, *Appellant.*
      ***

*Benjamin G. Hanson,*for appellant. (Appointed counsel for appeal).

*John G. McCutcheon*and *Eugene G. Olson,*for respondent.

Reported in 406 P.2d 760.

Per Curiam.

— Defendant (appellant) was convicted of second degree burglary. He employed trial counsel. Judgment and sentence were entered January 29,1964.

The record before us contains neither allegation nor proof of defendant’s indigency except as hereafter noted. However, February 6, 1964 (eight days after judgment and sentence), the trial court appointed appellate counsel and also defendant’s trial counsel “as co-counsel until the Statement of Facts is settled.” June 15, 1964 the statement of facts was certified.

May 8, 1964 a written notice of appeal was filed in which it is stated that it was filed

> according to the Notice of Appeal given in open court by the said indigent defendant on said date [January 29, 1964, the day judgment and sentence were entered.]

Rule on Appeal 46 provides that

> In order that the supreme court may secure jurisdiction of an appeal in a criminal cause: (a) A defendant *60must, within thirty days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from, file a notice of appeal in duplicate with the clerk of the superior court; ...

The mode supplied by the rules on appeal for securing appellate review by the Supreme Court is exclusive. Rule on Appeal 1.

The written notice of appeal was filed 71 days late. It is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction. Assuming arguendo, that oral notice of appeal was given in open court on January 29, 1964, as alleged in the written notice, it too is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction. In *Snohomish v. Patric,*56 Wn.2d 38, 350 P.2d 1009 (1960), this court held, in similar circumstances, that “Oral notice of appeal is without standing.”

This court did not acquire jurisdiction; hence, this appeal must be dismissed. *Beckstead v. Linden,*52 Wn.2d 892, 329 P.2d 1093 (1958).

It is so ordered.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-85,680-02

EX P ARTE TERRIO L A JOE HOL IDAY, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1383178-A IN THE 179TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the T ex as C o d e of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of burg lary of a habitation and sentenc ed to sixty year s’ imprisonment. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his c onviction. Holiday v. State , No. 14-14-00467- CR (Te x . App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] Mar. 12, 2015) (not desig nated f

or publication). Applicant contends that his appellate counsel failed to timely advise him of his right to file

a petition for discretionar y revie w (PD R ) and that he was denied his rig ht to do so beca use of a brea kdown in the sy stem.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4); Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts a re neede d. Pursuant to Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order appellate counsel to re spond to Applicant’s cla ims. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f t he trial court el ects to hold a hearing , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, t h e t ri al court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s appellate counsel timely advise Applicant that he had a rig ht to file a PDR. The trial court shall also d et er m i n e wh ether Applicant was denied his rig ht to file a PDR beca use of a brea

kdown in the sy stem. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The i s s u es s h al l be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwar ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: De cembe r 7, 2016 Do not publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                               VERTEL CORPORATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertel Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig S. Scott, Vice
President Finance & Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Craig S. Scott
------------------
Craig S. Scott
Vice President Finance & Administration,
Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary
August 14, 2002
# C_2020399EN.01001502.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X

(Case C-331/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98 - Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services - Annex III, point 1 - Definitions of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’ - Aphrodisiac products)

(2020/C 399/20)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: X

Operative part of the judgment

The concepts of ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ and ‘products normally used to supplement foodstuffs or as a substitute for foodstuffs’, set out in point 1 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that they refer to all products containing nutrients which serve as building blocks, generate energy and regulate its functions, which are necessary to keep the human body alive and enable it to function and develop, and which are consumed in order to provide it with those nutrients.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
# C_2020297EN.01001101.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/11

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

(Case C-73/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(1) - Scope - Concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ - Action for the cessation of unfair commercial practices brought by a public authority to protect the interests of consumers)

(2020/C 297/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgische Staat, represented by the Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met de Buitenlandse handel, and by the Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Controle en Bemiddeling van de FOD Economie, K.M.O., Middenstand en Energie, now Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie

Defendants: Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action where the opposing parties are the authorities of a Member State and businesses established in another Member State, in which those authorities seek, primarily, findings of infringements constituting allegedly unlawful unfair commercial practices and an order for the cessation of such infringements and, as ancillary measures, an order for publicity measures and the imposition of a penalty payment, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1007 

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to rename 

a site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2015 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act 

of 1992 to rename a site of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE DAYTON AVIATION HER4 ITAGE PRESERVATION ACT OF 1992. 

5 Section 101(b)(5) of the Dayton Aviation Heritage 

6 Preservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww(b)(5)) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘Aviation Center’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘National Museum’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.02




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)
AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Annual Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis E. Bunday, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ DENNIS E. BUNDAYDennis E. BundayChief Financial OfficerWilliams Controls, IncDecember 22, 2010


62




---